Jump to content

Thorfinn the Shallow Minded

Community Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by Thorfinn the Shallow Minded

  1. 7 hours ago, Palaxin said:

    These kind of choices were cool if they were a much more integral part of the game (cf. Age of Mythology God choices), so not restricted to Spartans, but available to any civ in some way.

    If we look at the way that the game was originally designed, most techs were meant to be paired, having the player choose between the two with different benefits.  Earlier alphas incorporated that, but the results were a bit mixed, leaving the current gamestate without that mechanic.  My take is that there should be choices provided that they are meaningful ones and play to different possibilities during the timeframe in which they were represented.  With Rome it might be a matter of trying to consider the demands of the plebeians over the senatorial elite.  Carthage might be a matter of relying on foreign mercenaries or locals for its military.  

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1
  2. 3 hours ago, Palaxin said:

    I have also been thinking that it would be nice to have Spartan hoplites right from the start, however, that will make balancing much more difficult (at least if you want them to be these uber champs I have been describing...) On the other hand, one could argue that they are so expensive that you would completely cripple your economy if you trained more than a handful of them before reaching city phase.

    I think that there could be a middle ground.  Units can improve through technologies and the like, and what might have served as a powerful village phase unit could be fairly average by comparison in the city phase.  The one thing that I'd say should be key to design of this sort is to remember that 'the rule of cool'>'balance.'  There should be an aim to always make things feel overpowered compared to vice-versa.  My vision would be more that Spartans would be maybe having at most 5 by the end of the village phase and maybe 10 in the town phase at most.  The point would be to consider what kind of role they would serve based on how the player chooses.  To me there should be a choice as to whether it would be a super-soldier like officer or a powerful mainline infantry unit.

  3. A while ago I wrote a similar thing to that but with a lot more detail; it didn't get much buzz probably because it was long, a fair critique, but here it is:

    A few things I think would be good takeaways: Sparta should have access to Spartan hoplites at the beginning of the game, with a Spartan hoplite being a starting unit.  Another thing was that cavalry would not be available until the town phase.  Scouting instead could be done by building a barracks and training a Skiritae unit.  For the Spartan hoplite in general, my focus was more around the fact that they could have auras that could buff friendly units and debuff enemies at the cost of an almost crippling training time that could be shortened through a variety of technologies.  

    • Like 1
  4. 2 hours ago, alre said:

    Let's give spearmen more attack power against rams!

    You do not go far enough! The tyranny of the sword must be overthrown by the objectively more popular and effective weapon.  We shall not rest until the reverse is done!  Spears remove half of a ram's health in a single strike while a sword does a paltry one damage.  

  5. 34 minutes ago, alre said:

    I'm not able to install the SVN version of the game, I can only read the gameplay patches in this thread. Hack damage of spearmen was indeed raised (and I was aware of it) but still remains this distinction between melee troups that are effective against rams and melee troups that aren't. This is not justified.

    Well, as I and others more or less unanimously agreed in a topic I started, trying to differentiate between sword and spear units to begin with is a kind of problematic approach.

  6. 9 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

    hack, pierce, crush already do this, it's just WFG stubbornly does not want to fix spearmen attack to align with this.

    They do do that, but the reason that WFG chose to give spearmen pierce attack to begin with was because well... most of the time spears pierce.  It's a case of making a thing intuitive on paper that is much less so in relation to the game.  The reason I prefer melee, ranged, and siege is that there is little doubt about how these work, which I consider grounds enough to make it an objectively better improvement.  Granted, hack, pierce, and crush are fine and perhaps good enough to not warrant bothering with a change, but it's because of these terms that the problem existed to begin with for vanilla 0 A.D.

    • Like 1
  7. 1 hour ago, alre said:

    mean the fact that you have to spare some particular units for killing siege machines, as the other melee units are not effective against them, whis mechanic is nowere to be found in other RTS. In AoE for instance, rams have high ranged units armor, but low melee armor, so any melee unit can damage it quickly enough, this is the first solution I mentioned above:

    Agreed.  In a topic I wrote entitled 'The Problem with Sword/Spear Units' I basically outlined the fact that differentiating between these two types of soldiers merely based on their weapons has little basis in history and hardly even functions well from a gameplay standpoint since spear units are by and large ineffective cavalry counters.  

    Essentially the underlying logic of why spear units are bad versus rams and buildings is because they use a pierce attack, which rams have a good deal of armour versus.  This of course is meant to be an intuitive choice but leads to this strange outcome.  If I were to rectify this, I think that all attacks should be reclassified as melee, ranged, and siege to better help players understand their purposes.

    • Like 2
  8. 7 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

    Well, there's also his naval program that built up the Athenian navy, a crucial element of Athenian (and Greek) history. We need a specific Naval hero for them and that's where Naval Architect comes from. Athenians have the Mines of Laureion bonus and Long Walls tech. 

    I suppose I should have clarified more.  The Oracle of Delphi supposedly stated that a wall of wood would save Athens, which Themistocles interpreted as a proper navy.  Granted, Wooden Walls could be misleading, but it definitely is more thematic.  Honestly the choice is a matter of taste.

    • Like 2
  9. As a minor point in how I would change the name of one of the abilities of Themistocles, I would have Naval Architect be replaced by "Wooden Walls," a reference to the supposed Oracle of Delphi.  

    In the case of the Piraeus Fortifications, it seems a bit odd to increase the hitpoints.  Themistocles was famous for stopping Sparta from halting construction of the Athenian walls, a point in which speed was key.  If anything, I would increase the speed of construction.


    • Like 1
  10. I already said a good deal of what I thought on the matter in my topic, The Role of Women in 0 A.D. back last year.  Here's the link. 

    A few ways in which I saw increased potential representation for women that would be the following: Vestal Virgins could be a trainable healing unit for Rome.  Also it seems that women were the priestesses for Athen's cult of Athena, and a handful Athenian women who were citizens apparently were merchants.

  11. 1 hour ago, borg- said:

    Risk 3: It can completely ruin the current gameplay.

    The ability to lame resources could definitely be problematic, but provided that there are significant nerfs to palisade stats outside friendly territory, that could be regarded as a non-issue.  Is there something I might otherwise be missing?

  12. 17 hours ago, Nescio said:

    Indeed! Or differentiate factions; e.g. Iphicrates' peltasts a 10-cubit pike, Alexander's phalangites 12-cubit pike, Seleucid's a 16-cubit pike, Ptolemies a 14-cubit pike. Moreover, having properly long pikes would allow mods to experiment with the syntagma.

    Not to sound skeptical, but just at a glance it seems a bit odd to me that there would be that noticeable of a difference in average pike lengths between two successor states.  Would you mind providing any source that backs that up?  

  13. 18 hours ago, Nescio said:

    Regardless, what I think is needed is more differentiation, not less. Make heavier troops cost more metal, while ranged troops are cheaper but have longer training times. Moreover, introduce more unit subtypes, with different values. Instead of just spear cavalry, have doratophoroi (spear, no shield), thyreophoroi (spear, long shield), and xystophoroi (very long two-handed lances); split slingers in stone-slingers and lead-slingers (longe range, little damage); separate crossbowman ( https://code.wildfiregames.com/D2886 ), camels ( https://code.wildfiregames.com/D2900 ), and chariots ( https://code.wildfiregames.com/D2965 ); make scythed chariots melee units; etc.

    Mainly what I am getting at is unnecessary differentiation.  Trying to shoehorn stuff, like sword versus spear, in a way that doesn't even work from a gameplay perspective let alone a historical one is meaningless.  I agree that there should be different types of spear cavalry, but effort shouldn't be on trying to wedge them into a particular tactical niche beyond what makes sense.  I don't wish to imply that you are trying to say that; in fact I would say that your patch work have helped the game immensely.  

  • Create New...